Theory's value for a science class debated

Scholars weigh questions of science, God, parent input.

Scholars weigh questions of science, God, parent input.

December 21, 2005|JENNIFER OCHSTEIN Tribune Staff Writer

Where do we come from? That depends on who you ask. Some elements in the natural world point to an intelligent cause, according to Jay W. Richards, research fellow and director of institutional relations at Acton Institute in Grand Rapids. Think of it this way, he said: If humankind were no longer here and an alien species landed on Earth and saw Mount Rushmore, would these aliens think someone chiseled the rock faces? Or would they assume wind and rain erosion carved the stone? Intelligent design asserts that some elements in nature seem to have been created by design rather than evolution -- the change in living creatures over time and the eventual emergence of new species of creatures. But evolution is the dominant view among scientists, according to Michael C. Rea, associate philosophy professor at the University of Notre Dame. That's because many scientists don't think intelligent design theory explains our origins at all, said Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy of biology ethics at Florida State University. Intelligent design "basically throws up its hands and says, 'It's a miracle,'æ" he said of the theory. Appealing to direct intervention by God, he said, is not a scientific answer. A scientist wants to know how intelligent design created life and what forces and materials it used, according to Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and director of Skeptics Society. But, he said via e-mail, the design theorist's explanation for such phenomena as origins of cells is simply to say, "I.D. did it." That, he said, is akin to saying "God did it," which makes intelligent design a theological theory. Not so, according to Richards. Depending on your definition of science, he said, intelligent design is very much scientific. Arguments based on empirical evidence are considered scientific arguments. And design theorists say they have evidence "to detect design where the case for design is strongest," he said. Alvin Plantinga, philosophy professor at the University of Notre Dame, doesn't see why intelligent design can't be considered science. "Scientists infer intelligent design all the time," Plantinga said. When scientists come across an arrowhead in a field, for instance, he said, they assume the weapon was intelligently designed. The school debate But this is more than just an academic argument. "It's a life-or-death situation because it could be opened up in the science classroom," Ruse says. He went on to say, "If the public at large insists on it being taught in schools, evolution will get downgraded. It would get the Christian evangelical right recognized as scientific in America." But, Plantinga asked and answered, who should decide what children are taught in schools? Parents. According to Plantinga, the majority of people are against the form of unguided evolution that says life as we have it "arose without the benefit of divine design." Indeed, according to a CBS poll this fall, 65 percent of Americans want intelligent design taught along with evolution, while 13 percent of Americans believe humans evolved without the guidance of God. "Furthermore, the claim that life did arise without design is a metaphysical or theological add-on, not part of the science as such," Plantinga said. Why then, he asks, should the claim that life arose without design be taught in schools? Richards said the theory should not be required in schools, but it should be allowed, just as evidence for and against evolution should be taught. But many, including Ruse and Shermer, believe intelligent design is not fit to be taught in science classrooms. "My position is that I.D. is a religious position, and not a good Christian one," Ruse said. "It is a product of indigenous American evangelical religion." And, Shermer contends, if the theory is to be taught, it's suitable only for a cultural studies class or comparative religions class teaching all different "origins myths." On top of that, Ruse said, it's "irritating" that design theorists will not say the behind-the-scenes designer is God. Design theorists certainly don't mean a super-human graduate student working on his thesis is putting his finger into natural processes, he argued. "I'm pretty sure they mean God," Ruse said. But it's not a prerequisite that intelligent design theory answer every single question, Richards says, as Darwinism -- Charles Darwin's idea that creatures have evolved through natural selection -- doesn't answer every question. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is the notion that certain traits which help a creature survive are passed along to successive generations by the parents. It's true most in the intelligent design movement are Christians, Rea said. But there is a distinction, he said, between the theory itself and the aims and motivations of those who are in the movement. "The view itself is not pushing any type of religion," Rea said. "You could be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Platonist or a Stoic and believe intelligent design. One of the main reasons people think it's pushing religion is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the major religions that involve a creator." And, Plantinga added, no matter what design theorists are trying to push, what does matter is whether the theory, in and of itself, is right. Further, evolution and intelligent design, in and of themselves, Plantinga says, are compatible, barring any "metaphysical add-ons." Chief among these add-ons, Plantinga explained, would be thinking, for example, that evolutionary processes were unguided or a matter of chance and necessity. But, Shermer contends, intelligent design is just not science "because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses," he wrote in a Los Angeles Times editorial. And, Ruse insists, the origins debate runs deep into the political fabric of the country. "It's a major political battle," Ruse insists. "It's seen as part and parcel to the moral values argument of the evangelical right." He said evolution represents what is naturalistic and materialistic and is "the litmus test for deep worries about moral values." But, Richards declares, "The public debate is whether or not intelligent design is a properly public argument." Simply put, if intelligent design is considered religion, it is relegated to the private beliefs of those who hold them. That, he said, is a mistake. There are religious implications for Darwinism, too, but that doesn't mean it should not be debated in public, he said. Repackaged creationism? Calling intelligent design "repackaged creationism" seems to have become a common way of referring to the theory in some public circles. Most creationists contend that God created the world in six literal days less than 10,000 years ago. But is intelligent design really creationism? Plantinga said no. He said traditional creationists see the world as between 6,000 and 8,000 years old, and intelligent design theorists don't necessarily think that. Rea says intelligent design theory is "not arguing for a six-day creation. It's not saying that the theory of evolution is entirely false." It is saying, he contends, that empirical evidence in nature points to design. Design theorists point to "irreducible complexity," in part, as mechanisms in the natural world that point to intelligent design. According to Richards, irreducibly complex machines can't function without all their basic parts. But natural selection, he said, builds only machines that can function and continue to change in small, incremental steps. Though many point to the eye as irreducibly complex, some scientists have said irreducible complexity has been refuted, including Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller, according to his Web site, //bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller. Ruse himself does not recognize intelligent design as traditional creationism, "but on the other hand, there is a strong family resemblance." He also said, "I see I.D. as part of a non-natural evangelical push against secular naturalism. I think it is Creationism Lite." And although he doesn't see the theory as having any redeeming qualities, he seems to respect it. "I recognize it as a sophisticated package," Ruse says. "On its own level, it's sophisticated and clever." In the end, it seems the origins debate will continue, no matter what forms the theories may take. According to Plantinga, the origins debate itself is significantly tied to religion. "Did we get here by accident or by God?" Plantinga asked. "It's a crucially important question." Staff writer Jennifer Ochstein: jochstein@sbtinfo.com (574) 235-6187